MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065618698 · doi:10.1159/000196200

Perception of Acute or Progressive Resistive Loads in Normal and Asthmatic Subjects

2009· article· en· W2065618698 on OpenAlexaff
Hélène Turcotte, Majd Tahan, Pierre Leblanc, Louis-Philippe Boulet

Bibliographic record

VenueRespiration · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDelphi Technique in Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFunctional residual capacityAirway resistanceTidal volumeVentilation (architecture)Respiratory systemRespiratory minute volumeAsthmaResistive touchscreenLung volumesRespiratory rateAnesthesiaAirwayCardiologyInternal medicineHeart rateLung

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To determine if the rapidity of increase in airway resistance influences its perception, we looked at the perception of acute and progressive expiratory resistive loads in 9 controls (CN) and 9 asthmatics (AS). Each had 4 single-blind tests in a randomized order, during which resistances were increased from 0 to 24 cm H<sub>2</sub>O/l/s in 1,3 or 6 steps or decreased in 6 steps. Dyspnea scores were recorded on a modified Borg scale (0-10). FEV<sub>1</sub> and lung volumes were measured in all subjects initially and after the last resistance applied during tests C and D. Tidal volume, respiratory rate, the ratio of inspiratory time over total breathing time (T<sub>i</sub>/T<sub>tot</sub>) and minute ventilation were measured throughout each test. Borg scores were not significantly different from one test to the other. Overall, AS tended to have a higher perception of resistive loads than CN, although it did not reach statistical significance. FEV<sub>1</sub> did not change significantly in both groups between the tests and before and after application of resistances. Functional residual capacity was not significantly different between AS and CN or before and after the tests. Residual volume was higher in AS (mean of the 4 tests: 1.6 ± 0.05 1) compared to CN (1.1 ± 0.14 1) (p = 0.003) but was unchanged after the applied resistances. T<sub>i</sub>/T<sub>tot</sub> ratio was similar for AS and CN and decreased significantly from 0 to 24 cm H<sub>2</sub>O/l/s in both groups (all tests, p < 0.01). Respiratory rate was higher in CN than in AS at all resistances (p < 0.001). Tidal volume and minute ventilation did not change significantly from 0 to 24 cm H<sub>2</sub>O/l/s in AS or CN. Tidal volume was significantly greater in AS than in CN (24 cm H<sub>2</sub>O/l/s: AS 0.68 ± 0.101, CN 0.54 ± 0.091, p = 0.027) and minute ventilation was higher in CN than in AS (24 cm H<sub>2</sub>O/l/s: AS 7.9 ± 1.3 1/ min, CN 12.9 ± 1.61/min, p = 0.001). In conclusion, in AS compared to CN, application of external resistive loads was associated with a lower minute ventilation, an increased tidal volume and a trend towards a keener perception. Perception of maximal resistive loads was similar whenever they were applied slowly or acutely.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.934
Threshold uncertainty score0.181

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.065
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.369 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRespirationSame topicDelphi Technique in ResearchFrench-language works237,207